Talk:Science and technology

Disambiguation page

Following a DRV[1] this has been recreated as a disambiguation page. I posted on the closer's talk page[2] asking advice but perhaps I should have raised the matter here.

I suspect the people at AFD and DRV didn't really understand that "science and technology" is a general term of art not just the conjunction of two words. Anyway, the new Science and technology looks quite nice to me though I hope we don't do the same to Research and development or, indeed, Tom and Jerry. However, a bot has come along telling us we should disambiguate incoming links[3] and I expect it will have consequences for articles containing the incoming links and for people adding links in future. I doubt whether changing the links to "science and technology" makes sense. Maybe remove these links entirely since we now have nothing to say worth saying. Does anyone know how all this will affect what DPL bot does and does anyone have any remedial suggestions generally? Thincat (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The closer of the DRV has kindly removed the DPL bot tag and has stopped it interfering in future. Are the incoming links a problem? Thincat (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC) --49.149.179.196 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Should it exist as a disambiguation page?

This page simply directs visitors to Science and Technology, which I think they can find just as easily without this page. Furthermore, the existance of this page could be counterproductive since some may percieve that there is an article on the topic.

If this can be a standalone article, fine. But if not, this should be deleted.--YTRK (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I am going to redirect to Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. --jacobolus (t) 19:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody ever bothered trying to discuss. They just reverted. One edit summary claimed this article is an WP:OUTLINE, but that seems like a highly dubious claim to me. I still think this article has essentially no independent value and should be redirected to Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Can someone who wants to keep it please provide some kind of argument justifying its existence? If it helps, try to imagine a hypothetical reader. How would they arrive at this page and what would they be looking for? What if anything among the links on this page would help them more than the STEM page? Would any hypothetical reader be able to find this page but not find the science, technology, STEM, or History of science and technology articles independently?

Speaking for myself, I don’t buy it. This article seems redundant and pointless, more or less an attention tax on anyone who arrives here and then needs to think about the indirection.

If someone wants to write a complete article about the concept of "science and technology" (whatever that might mean) then I can imagine such a thing being useful. But just this handful of links? Not worth it. –jacobolus (t) 19:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There was even a articles for deletion consensus a few years back, which was apparently undone without discussion, despite nothing having changed in the intervening time. I am going to delete again. Someone who wants this article to remain should have to put some actual effort into it or at least gather some kind of consensus support through community processes. –jacobolus (t) 20:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Querendo traduzir, vem ser feliz aq. 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:6E85:C8B2:25DC:2295 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what is the difference between this article and Science and technology studies. I need sources in order to create the article in Portuguese. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 14:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Marths

Marths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.76.113.125 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)